And something else, did Walace use all the trees to build his office? Everything appears to be made out of wood.

I am containing my disappointment presently. I'm trying to be positive. I'm trying to tell myself to enjoy it for what it is, but the more I see, the more what it is looks like a very expensive missed opportunity.

And something else, did Walace use all the trees to build his office? Everything appears to be made out of wood.

I am containing my disappointment presently. I'm trying to be positive. I'm trying to tell myself to enjoy it for what it is, but the more I see, the more what it is looks like a very expensive missed opportunity.

Sets and settings are Sparse, clean, very open, and way too much mid century modern - not Blade Runner - AT ALL.

And let's be clear - Arrival was a terrible Sci Fi film - Terrible and stupid. Aliens coordinate a multi ship intergalactic voyage but don't have a way of communicating, translating or even showing pictures or video to relay their intentions - so dumb. Would have been fast asleep in the theater on that one luckily I was home and able to shut off the free screener within 45 minutes.

And SRS as a producer - don't expect that to save the day - this was a remote cash grab as he was too busy ruining Aliens to be bothered on this one.

While I can agree on some of the points made by our group here (mainly grey palette, sparse enviro) as for wood, who says it's real wood?
Can the world of L.A. 2019 resemble the one from 2049? This is not the way to do it folks
I know that the look of the original is engraved in our memories...but that doesn't mean that it has to remain static.
Society/World doesn't stay in a static state, things change, buildings, clothing, cars, little details that make our lives interesting

While I can agree on some of the points made by our group here (mainly grey palette, sparse enviro) as for wood, who says it's real wood?
Can the world of L.A. 2019 resemble the one from 2049? This is not the way to do it folks
I know that the look of the original is engraved in our memories...but that doesn't mean that it has to remain static.
Society/World doesn't stay in a static state, things change, buildings, clothing, cars, little details that make our lives interesting

Its not about being different or evolving - it just doesn't look good. Sparse Sci Fi looks cheap. We've already seen way way too many examples of this over the last few years - Minority Report, Oblivion, Gattaca, Passengers, and Arrival. Its like production design by Ikea and an Apple store.

We've moved past the clean sparse 1960s early 70's sci-fi look (Star Trek TV Show) many moons ago with the advancement of visual tone, lighting and production design on the original Star Wars, Alien, Aliens and Blade Runner. Guardians of the Galaxy is a perfect example of costumes and sets creating an amazing visual world for the characters to inhabit.

Well, I think it's a growing trend (look at Design/Architecture mags) to have a more modern/Zen type of environment.
Very "empty" of clutter (I sound like those Designers from the early '30s ), yes, to remove the visual/material "noise" of everyday life, you should come back to a tranquil home were your visual cues are not full of stuff.

Now, as for Deckard, he's still living in an old type of dwelling (lots of stuff around him, like in his previous apt.) while others have chosen to de-clutter their life (I guess, that's another type of discussion altogether ).

The clean modern space age design of the 1950s-60s culminated in the film 2001: a Space Odyssey, but also TV shows like Star Trek where the future promised cleanliness. The problem with doing it in film is that over time that look itself became a cliche' and was constantly used as a clue to futurism, even though it really ended up being boring and looking fake. Star Wars might have been the first to take the future and dirty it down and make it truly look lived in, though Kubrick to some degree did it in A Clockwork Orange. Blade Runner took a piece from that and the artistic density of the Heavy metal Comic artists. It showed a contrast between the rich and poor, with Tyrell's living spaces being much cleaner, but still having texture in the way of Art Deco and neo-classical ornamentalism. Ridley even counteracted some of the sparseness in Tyrell's office with the use of light, fog, and reflections to create more texture. It made the film a sensual experience. The clean "Zen" styling we see today seem overly commercial to me, and are less of a style than a mental trick to lessen anxiety during a shopping experience. The decor needs to be constantly updated because any wear and tear will make ruin it's perfection, and function. The great brilliance in the style of Blade Runner was as Rutger Hauer put it "the future is old". The future is unable to be refurbishing itself, and instead it is adding parts and pieces to keep things going, in what was called "Retro-fitting", and unintentionally created Cyberpunk DIY style. We are now conditioned to love new and clean commercial product, and fear the imperfection of man-made items. Blade Runner showed the resourcefulness of the poor in a post consumer technological underground society. The rich perhaps have their zen clean apartments and condos, but many of them have left the earth, leaving behind much of their collections of antiques. Making the future in this film clean and slick, is pretentious, commercial, lazy, boring, sterile, dehumanizing, and antithetical to major themes in the original film, not to mention it just seems cheap. If they show a contrast between the rich and regular people using it, okay, but it just doesn't work for me. It doesn't look authentic or lived in. It takes me out of the environment, and makes it feel like I am not allowed to go in there. Blade Runner should not be a stark film, but rich in color and texture. That is what made the film great originally.

The clean modern space age design of the 1950s-60s culminated in the film 2001: a Space Odyssey, but also TV shows like Star Trek where the future promised cleanliness. The problem with doing it in film is that over time that look itself became a cliche' and was constantly used as a clue to futurism, even though it really ended up being boring and looking fake. Star Wars might have been the first to take the future and dirty it down and make it truly look lived in, though Kubrick to some degree did it in A Clockwork Orange. Blade Runner took a piece from that and the artistic density of the Heavy metal Comic artists. It showed a contrast between the rich and poor, with Tyrell's living spaces being much cleaner, but still having texture in the way of Art Deco and neo-classical ornamentalism. Ridley even counteracted some of the sparseness in Tyrell's office with the use of light, fog, and reflections to create more texture. It made the film a sensual experience. The clean "Zen" styling we see today seem overly commercial to me, and are less of a style than a mental trick to lessen anxiety during a shopping experience. The decor needs to be constantly updated because any wear and tear will make ruin it's perfection, and function. The great brilliance in the style of Blade Runner was as Rutger Hauer put it "the future is old". The future is unable to be refurbishing itself, and instead it is adding parts and pieces to keep things going, in what was called "Retro-fitting", and unintentionally created Cyberpunk DIY style. We are now conditioned to love new and clean commercial product, and fear the imperfection of man-made items. Blade Runner showed the resourcefulness of the poor in a post consumer technological underground society. The rich perhaps have their zen clean apartments and condos, but many of them have left the earth, leaving behind much of their collections of antiques. Making the future in this film clean and slick, is pretentious, commercial, lazy, boring, sterile, dehumanizing, and antithetical to major themes in the original film, not to mention it just seems cheap. If they show a contrast between the rich and regular people using it, okay, but it just doesn't work for me. It doesn't look authentic or lived in. It takes me out of the environment, and makes it feel like I am not allowed to go in there. Blade Runner should not be a stark film, but rich in color and texture. That is what made the film great originally.

So far I`ve been impressed with what little has been shown, the LAPD building is a new building and comes off just like it should really and the interiors of the Tyrell,
oops Wallace building look incredible. It does appear a little to high definition right now but I remember the early trailers of Fury Road were the same but softened a little on release._________________Formerly offworld66

I can understand the "Sci-Fi Style" that's been around since...the "30s and the Art Deco Movement (many design ideas applied during the Mid-Century Modern Architecture). While the interior of "2001 A Space Odyssey" were "hospital like" (not so much the space ships who where heavily weathered for the time...not à la StarWars of course; ILM pushed the used future to its limits IMO).

As for the re-using of things in the original BR, how much of this collection of eclectic objects is a part of a making of a "Life History" for Deckard?
Is everybody collects for the sake of clinging to the old society of yesteryear, or is it to preserve History or, part of it has really a practical purpose (transport, communications, cooking, clothing, etc)?

We certainly have different "Styles" in BR: Napoleonic for Tyrell, eclectic, Art Deco, FLLR, for Deckard as well as for Sebastian...why not, in this movie, present other types of interior designs? I don't think it's lazy, just to show that, in a society, there's a lot of choices ...even in a society that is into re-cycling, re-using and transforming the same objects, over and over again.

Blade Runner was a true masterpiece, like watching fine art. It's genius is that it teased a world in smoke and mirrors and old relics, leaving everything else to the viewers imagination and 30 years of discussion which has kept it alive today. Less is more!

Watching it feels like being in a dream with it's haunting beautiful lighting and visuals. Deckard was the biggest enigma of the movie. Already from the clips in 2049 trailers it doesn't feel like that character. The story wasn't trying to save the world but just an insight on a group of 'slaves' trying to survive.

2049 is just all wrong it's like taking a mysterious black and white photo where the lighting and the physical film capture something magical and then going back to the same location 30 years later taking the same picture with a colour digital camera exposing everything as it is. Add a bit of action guns blazing cars exploding, car chases, saving the humanity rising up with the lower classes against the rich oppressor, changing the world etc. same old yarn and you become every other forgettable action sci-fi film.

Like with all modern sequels and prequels I'll watch it and think of it as nothing else other than an entertaining expensive fanfilm. Like with that abomination Rogue One star wars film. It was an entertaining fanfilm though it will never be Star Wars to me. Those characters were just the worst ever! Even though it was cool seeing Vader, the only part worth watching _________________"F*ck it, it's just a movie. Let him worry about it" Harrison Ford

I can understand the "Sci-Fi Style" that's been around since...the "30s and the Art Deco Movement (many design ideas applied during the Mid-Century Modern Architecture). While the interior of "2001 A Space Odyssey" were "hospital like" (not so much the space ships who where heavily weathered for the time...not à la StarWars of course; ILM pushed the used future to its limits IMO).

As for the re-using of things in the original BR, how much of this collection of eclectic objects is a part of a making of a "Life History" for Deckard?
Is everybody collects for the sake of clinging to the old society of yesteryear, or is it to preserve History or, part of it has really a practical purpose (transport, communications, cooking, clothing, etc)?

We certainly have different "Styles" in BR: Napoleonic for Tyrell, eclectic, Art Deco, FLLR, for Deckard as well as for Sebastian...why not, in this movie, present other types of interior designs? I don't think it's lazy, just to show that, in a society, there's a lot of choices ...even in a society that is into re-cycling, re-using and transforming the same objects, over and over again.

Because it is how it feels, and why Blade Runner made itself different than other films. Imagine if Star Wars started using Star trek style ships and changed its aesthetic? Blade Runner was very unique, and even with all the copy cats, still is. The new film lacks that, and feels way too contemporary.